We’re coming upon the end in this episode of the Misdirected Mark Podcast. No. Not the end of the show but the end of campaigns. We’re finding those finishes and providing some tips, tricks, and ideas about them. Misdirected Mark Productions Patreon...
Read more
MMP#373 – Endgame
-
Jared Rascher
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:45 am
- Contact:
Re: MMP#373 – Endgame
Reading the Engine Publishing books and approaching my game with intentionality really changed how I approached campaigns, and part of that was reading the advice to come up with how long the campaign is expected to run in the initial pitch for the campaign. Since I've started doing this, I've had a lot more campaigns that actually ended, and they ended with some degree of resolution.
Before I adopted that strategy, I did stumble over a campaign that ended up with an epic endgame, but it was enforced by circumstance. I had a 3.5 D&D group, which started as a 3.0 group, that had played their characters for years, up to 13th level. One of my friends from that group was moving away, and another member of the group that had moved away in the first year of the campaign was back to visit. We hadn't been able to play for a few months, so we set aside a day where we could play for an 8 hour stretch, which turned into about a 10 hour stretch.
The final epic session had them fighting demons on the outskirts of Myth Drannor, and an army of Shadovar, including some elder shadow elementals. Because we skipped ahead a few years in campaign time before the resolution, the PCs ended up defending the temple they helped to found, and they saved a kidnapped and brainwashed NPC from the Shadovar. It was only the second time I had intentionally and successfully ended a campaign on purpose.
From the standpoint of many traditional games, I think that the concept of the adventure path really changed how many people engaged with D&D. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Dragonlance was the first adventure path, but it really didn't become the "default" way of presenting a d20 campaign until Paizo made it their go to business model, but I think it heavily influenced the "make a new character at 1st to play through the hardcover adventure" paradigm of 5e D&D. Of course, the "innovation" that 5e brought is that with the assumption of milestone leveling, you don't need an extra one or two adventures where the adventure path stalls out because the PCs have to do something repetitious for a few levels just to grind some XP to be at a satisfying level to play through the . . . endgame. Yeah, that's what I was talking about.
Before the concept of the Adventure Path or the seasonal hardcover story really set in, I think for a lot of players the expectation was perpetual adventuring, all the way up to 20th level, and beyond if they put out rules for it, regardless of how the story beats might fall. Or, more likely, play like you'll hit 20th level, but actually play until everyone gets burned out and wants to do something else.
I have still had campaigns that ended early because of adult scheduling issues. But every game now, I have an idea that we're playing through a story arc of 6 to 12 adventures, and once that story arc wraps up, we'll evaluate if we want to keep going with those characters and formulate another chapter. It definitely helps to encourage me to have final adventures that involve things like defending the Queen of Avalon from Scylla as the Royal Navy is cautiously allying with the ships of the Montaigne, or having PCs try to return the bones of Surtur to Hel, while trying to keep Nidhogg from convincing one of their number to turn on their companions, and dodging the fangs of Garm the Hel-Hound.
Before I adopted that strategy, I did stumble over a campaign that ended up with an epic endgame, but it was enforced by circumstance. I had a 3.5 D&D group, which started as a 3.0 group, that had played their characters for years, up to 13th level. One of my friends from that group was moving away, and another member of the group that had moved away in the first year of the campaign was back to visit. We hadn't been able to play for a few months, so we set aside a day where we could play for an 8 hour stretch, which turned into about a 10 hour stretch.
The final epic session had them fighting demons on the outskirts of Myth Drannor, and an army of Shadovar, including some elder shadow elementals. Because we skipped ahead a few years in campaign time before the resolution, the PCs ended up defending the temple they helped to found, and they saved a kidnapped and brainwashed NPC from the Shadovar. It was only the second time I had intentionally and successfully ended a campaign on purpose.
From the standpoint of many traditional games, I think that the concept of the adventure path really changed how many people engaged with D&D. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Dragonlance was the first adventure path, but it really didn't become the "default" way of presenting a d20 campaign until Paizo made it their go to business model, but I think it heavily influenced the "make a new character at 1st to play through the hardcover adventure" paradigm of 5e D&D. Of course, the "innovation" that 5e brought is that with the assumption of milestone leveling, you don't need an extra one or two adventures where the adventure path stalls out because the PCs have to do something repetitious for a few levels just to grind some XP to be at a satisfying level to play through the . . . endgame. Yeah, that's what I was talking about.
Before the concept of the Adventure Path or the seasonal hardcover story really set in, I think for a lot of players the expectation was perpetual adventuring, all the way up to 20th level, and beyond if they put out rules for it, regardless of how the story beats might fall. Or, more likely, play like you'll hit 20th level, but actually play until everyone gets burned out and wants to do something else.
I have still had campaigns that ended early because of adult scheduling issues. But every game now, I have an idea that we're playing through a story arc of 6 to 12 adventures, and once that story arc wraps up, we'll evaluate if we want to keep going with those characters and formulate another chapter. It definitely helps to encourage me to have final adventures that involve things like defending the Queen of Avalon from Scylla as the Royal Navy is cautiously allying with the ships of the Montaigne, or having PCs try to return the bones of Surtur to Hel, while trying to keep Nidhogg from convincing one of their number to turn on their companions, and dodging the fangs of Garm the Hel-Hound.
Re: MMP#373 – Endgame
When I was a teenager and had all the time in the world, (and fewer games to play) the idea of an endgame was anathema to me. Ending a campaign on purpose felt like giving up on gaming. There were exceptions, some characters got so comfortable they just retired, which could end a campaign. Keeping a campaign open meant that we could set aside the campaign for a while and jump back in if someone came up with a cool new story arc.
These days endgames make more sense. It's far harder to keep that campaign going consistently. It's much more satisfying to say that you finished the game than to say you'll never finish it. I've even written a couple games with built in endgames.
These days endgames make more sense. It's far harder to keep that campaign going consistently. It's much more satisfying to say that you finished the game than to say you'll never finish it. I've even written a couple games with built in endgames.